SIR,—Dr. Donald Mel, Johnson reverts to a familiar fallacy when
he mentions, as a mark of our opulent society, the 'ugly rash of street prostitution' prior to the Street Offences Act. It is true that the police had stepped up the number of prosecutions by the simple device of pulling in the girls at more fre- quent intervals, but the evidence before the Wolfen- den Committee showed that the total volume of street prostitution in London had declined since the turn of the century and had not perceptibly re- covered in recent years.
I hope that some of our Members of Parliament will not overlook a further detail. The Wolfenden Report expressed the view that the law should not seek to extinguish prostitution : it envisaged that prostitutes driven off the streets would be allowed to carry on their profession by 'less injurious' means. 'Small advertisements' were specifically mentioned. Mr. Butler introduced the Street Offences Bill as 'following exactly the recommendation of the Wol- fenden Report.' It was, of course, acknowledged that the Act might bring about worse conditions which in their turn would call for further legislation; but
nothing was said during the debates in Parliament to indicate that as soon as the streets had been cleared the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, with the Home Secretary's approval, would invoke existing laws to close those relatively inoffensive means of communication anticipated in the Report.
It is impossible to comment while the case of the Ladies' Directory is still sub judice, but the police have not waited for a conviction before mov- ing against those shopkeepers in Soho, Paddington and elsewhere who have displayed the 'small ad- vertisements.' How, then, can it be believed that the intention is to 'follow the recommendations of the Wolfenden Report' in the sense in which any reason- able man would understand that phrase?—Yours faithfully,
Darenth House, Leigh-on-Sea. Essex
R. L. ARCHDALE
Previous page
